Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > uh, since you asked. I think the logic is that, at least with gcc, -g > is never harmful since you can compile with -O and -g and then strip > later if necessary.
Yeah, but ... > Does it still default to -g with compilers that > cannot do -O and -g together? *Yes*. This is exactly the problem, really. One could reasonably accuse the autoconf developers of FSF imperialism, because they have seen to it that autoconf-based configure scripts will choose non-optimal CFLAGS for non-gcc compilers. These same geeks would be screaming for Microsoft's blood if Microsoft tried comparable tactics, so I don't have a whole lot of sympathy. (Side note: I've been overriding this particular autoconf-ism in libjpeg's configure script since about 1995, so it's not like my antipathy to it is a new subject.) > Also, RMS happens to think all binaries should be installed with symbols. I > think he's seen far too many emacs bug reports where the user was unable to > provide any useful bug report because the binary was stripped. I hear where he's coming from, believe me. But RPM builds generally strip the binaries anyway, so autoconf isn't really accomplishing anything with this that I can see. The mass market won't be providing stack traces with their bug reports, whether the binary has symbols or not. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly